Not sure whether this belongs here or news articles, since it is an off-topic new article: I think it is pretty relevant, since we are an online forum cloaked in anonymity...interesting stuff from david Pogue, the tech editor of the NY Times:

December 14, 2006, 11:58 am
Whatever Happened to Online Etiquette?
“Dear David, first off i would like to tell you that you are full of **** and did not research the zune enough to know your facts.

“The following are incorrect, and not limited to: podcasts, giftcards, looks(which is an oppinion), controls, and content. Also i would like to inform you that on the day of the launch(nov 14) there is a sceduled firmware upgrade which will most likely disband the 3 by 3 rule [which limits songs beamed between Zunes to three playbacks within three days], and the zune marketplace is also to offer video content about one month after launch. In my oppinion you should be fired for wrighting such a biast article in a (somewhat)professional newspaper. Oh and in case you think i work for microsoft or have bad grammar, or something, you should know that im 15!”

The deeper we sail into the new online world of communications, the sadder I get about its future.

I’m OK with criticism, I’m fine with disagreement, I’m perfectly capable of handling angry mail. That’s not the issue here (although my teenage correspondent above was, in fact, wrong about every single one of his points).

I’ve even accepted personal attacks as part of the job. I’m a columnist; the heat comes with the kitchen.

But what’s really stunning is how hostile *ordinary* people are to each other online these days.

Slashdot and Digg.com are extremely popular sites for tech fans. Each discussion begins with the presentation of an article or Web page–and then opens up the floor for discussion.

Lately, an increasing number of the discussions devolve into name-calling and bickering. Someone might submit, say, this item to Digg:

685 diggs. “AWESOME astronomy poem.” (posted by MetsFan 3 days ago)

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, how I wonder what you are.
Up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky,
Twinkle, twinkle, little star, how I wonder what you are.

Before long, the people’s feedback begins, like this:

by baddude on 12/11/06

What’s yr problem, moron. You already said it’s a star, why would you then wonder what it is. Get a clue, or a life.

by neverland2 on 12/11/06

Dugg down as inaccurate. Stars do not twinkle. It’s the shifting atmosphere that causes an apparent twinkle. Or were you stoned all through science class?

Honestly, the intellectual level of you people is right up there with a gnat’s.

…and so on.

What’s worse is that the concentration of the nasty people increases as the civil ones get fed up and leave.

What’s going on here?

My current theories:

* On the Internet, you’re anonymous. Since you don’t have to face the person you’re dumping on, you don’t see any reason to display courtesy.

* On the Internet, you’re anonymous. You worry that your comments might get lost in the shuffle, so you lay it on thick to enhance your noticeability.

* The open toxicity is all part of the political climate. We’ve learned from the Red state-Blue state talking heads that open hostility can pass for meaningful conversation.

* Young people who spend lots of time online are, in essence, replacing in-person social interactions with these online exchanges. With so much less experience conversing in the real world, they haven’t picked up on the value of treating people civilly. That is, they haven’t yet hit the stage of life when getting things like friends, a spouse and a job depend on what kind of person you are.

* Many parents haven’t been teaching social skills (or haven’t been around to teach them) for years, but Web 2.0 is suddenly making it apparent for the first time. (”Web 2.0? describes sites like Digg and Slashdot, where the audience itself provides material for the Web site.)

I’d give just about anything to hear what 15-year-old Josh’s parents would say if they knew how little respect he holds for adults (let alone the English language). Then again, maybe they wouldn’t be surprised a bit.

The real shame, though, is that the kneejerk “everyone else is an idiot” tenor is poisoning the potential the Internet once had. People used to dream of a global village, where maybe we can work out our differences, where direct communication might make us realize that we have a lot in common after all, no matter where we live or what our beliefs.

But instead of finding common ground, we’re finding new ways to spit on the other guy, to push them away. The Internet is making it easier to attack, not to embrace.

Maybe as the Internet becomes as predominant as air, somebody will realize that online behavior isn’t just an afterthought. Maybe, along with HTML and how to gauge a Web site’s credibility, schools and colleges will one day realize that there’s something else to teach about the Internet: Civility 101.

To Live is A Value Judgment - Albert Camus
3 reasons for living: Jazz, Hoops and women

Although I agree with Pogue's first 2 points, I think it's just too easy of a solution to claim "parents aren't teaching children values" these days. Honestly, every debate that involves something wrong with today's youth inevitably puts the parents at fault. Video games. Poorer GPA's. Juvenile crime. Whenever the question become too tough to answer, skeptics always seem to fall back on the parents when searching for a motive or reason.

The truth is, many things (for both children and adults alike) can't be explained with a reason or motive. Be it rapes, murders, 'why I stole Jimmy's milk money', ect, ect, ect. Sometimes, the problem lies within the person and the reasons make sense to the person (and him/her alone)... which is a terribly hard solution for our society to swallow.

In an age where every Q has an A, not understanding something that's never meant to be understood is particularly troubling... and the result is something like David Pogue's article. I, for one, prefer to use the "fair enough" mind frame when it comes to online mudslinging. I can tell you, personally, that my anonymous status has nothing to do with why I get into heated debates around this forum... and I can prove it. My real name has been mentioned here. I've mentioned, a few times, what I look like. And in one, rare, situation, I've even dropped my address onto the board. I have absolutely no fear of anyone knowing who I am or where to find me. But, again, I can't speak for everyone. I know many people here would prefer to remane anonymous. And that's fine by me. Like I said, I use the "fair enough" method and it's worked fine so far.

I'm not too concerned with online etiquette. It's not a major issue for me. I'm civil and normal in most cases... and when somebody pushes my buttons, I can get downright nasty. I can assure you that name-calling and cursing is not the only form of trash-talking here; sometimes, I get honked off at somebody telling me that my idea(s) are stupid or uninformed. People can be rude, as well as hateful... and neither are a lesser evil, as far as I'm concerned, in an online environment.

I must say that I agree with most points in the article. I think anonymity has become a problem, because it allows people to not be accountable for your actions. What's the worst that can happen?. You can be banned from one site... so what?. There are thousands more. In other words, freedom has become a problem.

As for the reasons... who knows?. Sometimes it can be the parents or the lack of social skills. Others it may be copycat procedures (they've seen it in other forums, so they copy it. Probably think it's cool or something)...

I've met people that change according to the circumstances. They're perfectly polite people in real life... and change when that veil of anonymity surrounds them. I can't really explain that.

In any case, I can live with that. As #32 said, the "fair enough" mentality works well. We can always choose to ignore trouble makers... The problem is when it happens so much that other users get fed up and leave. That's what really worries me. That's when it become a real problem.

all well-reasoned and well thought out. I think anonymity is the key here. Esp. in the larger forums, there is little to no accountability. The other thing is that, even more than an email, there is no filter between the thought and the sending of the thought. In real life, we are constantly reading facial expression, tone of voice, etc and there are a 1000 things that keep us from saying or doing something unforgiveable. I lost a few friendships over angry email and online is even more immediate. It has the instantaneous nature of conversation and the permanence of a letter. Somehow, when we read something, it has more impact on us. It reminds me of JFK's famous putdown of Washington DC -"Northern charm and Southern efficiency".

I do worry about it with young people, whether the whole online thing is causing them to not develop basic social skills.. I have seen it with my son, and though he doesn't flame and slander, I see so much of it on some of the forums he is on. This forum is usually within the bounds, more so than most, and we actually have some genuine debate and conversation on this forum, though it has gotten a little overheated lately. I can only think of one instance where someone crossed the line so much and repeatedly they were banned, and it is also an opportunity for me to exchange ideas with folks I wouldn't necessarily run into in my daily life.

Now we have to find out why the F bomb seems to be slipping past Hobbes filters

coltraning wrote:The other thing is that, even more than an email, there is no filter between the thought and the sending of the thought. In real life, we are constantly reading facial expression, tone of voice, etc and there are a 1000 things that keep us from saying or doing something unforgiveable. I lost a few friendships over angry email and online is even more immediate. It has the instantaneous nature of conversation and the permanence of a letter. Somehow, when we read something, it has more impact on us. It reminds me of JFK's famous putdown of Washington DC -"Northern charm and Southern efficiency".

I know what you mean here. Most of the dramatic problems I had in high school stemmed from an AIM conversation or even somebody's blog entree. We always refered to it as "faceless cyberspace" because there's no way to tell what mood the other person's in when he's saying whatever he's saying. Oddly enough, I can't recall one instance where I fought with my friends face-to-face... but I do remember how pissed off they got whenever we spoke online.

I think we're lucky to have the smiley feature here, because it maintains some sort of emotion:

You son of a bitch.

You son of a bitch.

You son of a bitch.

Notice how the one without the smiley is automatically percieved as angry, due to the nature of the phrase. But we don't know how the poster intended that sentence to be heard. For all we know, he's joking... but forgot to leave the smiley. Now imagine an entire email or blog entree like that. Something as harmless as slight sarcasm suddenly seems like seething hatred.

It all just adds up to why I prefer anything (face-to-face, phone call... even a hand-written letter) to internet conversations. Its why I'll never have a MySpace. It's why I'm not a usual blogger. The only forum in which I constantly speak in is this one. Aside from this, I'm usually offline.

But I think you make a really good point about the facial expressions, colt. I think tone of voice, context, and knowing specifically WHO'S hearing you also plays a large role.

coltraning wrote:The other thing is that, even more than an email, there is no filter between the thought and the sending of the thought. In real life, we are constantly reading facial expression, tone of voice, etc and there are a 1000 things that keep us from saying or doing something unforgiveable. I lost a few friendships over angry email and online is even more immediate. It has the instantaneous nature of conversation and the permanence of a letter. Somehow, when we read something, it has more impact on us. It reminds me of JFK's famous putdown of Washington DC -"Northern charm and Southern efficiency".

I know what you mean here. Most of the dramatic problems I had in high school stemmed from an AIM conversation or even somebody's blog entree. We always refered to it as "faceless cyberspace" because there's no way to tell what mood the other person's in when he's saying whatever he's saying. Oddly enough, I can't recall one instance where I fought with my friends face-to-face... but I do remember how pissed off they got whenever we spoke online.

I think we're lucky to have the smiley feature here, because it maintains some sort of emotion:

You son of a bitch.

You son of a bitch.

You son of a bitch.

Notice how the one without the smiley is automatically percieved as angry, due to the nature of the phrase. But we don't know how the poster intended that sentence to be heard. For all we know, he's joking... but forgot to leave the smiley. Now imagine an entire email or blog entree like that. Something as harmless as slight sarcasm suddenly seems like seething hatred.

It all just adds up to why I prefer anything (face-to-face, phone call... even a hand-written letter) to internet conversations. Its why I'll never have a MySpace. It's why I'm not a usual blogger. The only forum in which I constantly speak in is this one. Aside from this, I'm usually offline.

But I think you make a really good point about the facial expressions, colt. I think tone of voice, context, and knowing specifically WHO'S hearing you also plays a large role.

I agree. I have a good command of the English language, both in written and verbal forms, but I am often surprised at how something I have written is misinterpreted. Humor is a huge landmine online. I may intend something as light or funny, and someone takes it seriously and the firewroks begin. You know: "You motherfuvker, how can you POSSIBLY think Bobby Sura has more skills than Iverson!!!" You are so right that folks misread sarcasm and irony all the time. I try to be careful and clear, and try to clarify when I take something a certain way that the poster might not have intended. Not always successful, but trying. Icons can help for sure. Nothing beats face to face, esp. with women. (Of course, sometimes when my wife and I haven't gotten along, the cooling distance of email can be the best, so it is a paradox.)

I believe that a lot of it is anonymity and that this gneration is no less civil. The eighties had prank calls. The nineties had doorbell ditching. Back inthe forties people maybe would tip over people's outhouses. The new millenium has forums because that is available. Which is actually the most civil of those three offenses. It just has to do with the tools that are there. Maybe in the past you'd send somebody a broken egg in the mail now you send them a virus.

And, contrary to the author who to me was just a guy aggravated by a flame email, the biggest offenders of flaming are bitter, undeducated middle aged men.

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:I believe that a lot of it is anonymity and that this gneration is no less civil. The eighties had prank calls. The nineties had doorbell ditching. Back inthe forties people maybe would tip over people's outhouses. The new millenium has forums because that is available. Which is actually the most civil of those three offenses. It just has to do with the tools that are there. Maybe in the past you'd send somebody a broken egg in the mail now you send them a virus.

And, contrary to the author who to me was just a guy aggravated by a flame email, the biggest offenders of flaming are bitter, undeducated middle aged men.

I think it is worse now though. Sending a virus can ruin a computer and all the documents in it while a rotten egg in the mail is less harmful.

The internet has also allowed those individuals who have fetishes (some destructive) to run riot without being accountable and that can be a scary thing if you have children. The internet is a great invention that allows mass sharing of information but there is always the bad side as well